Dr. Randy White
Addendum (Added 10/31/14): It has been reported by some that the story upon which my comments are based is “100% false.” However, it looks to me like the story has changed, but is not false. In this story by KXLY TV of Spokane , as reported on May 15, the city attorney for Coeur d'Alene clearly says that the Hitching Post would be in violation of the law and subject to fines. The same information was reported by the Spokane Spokesman-Review on May 15. On October 24, Boise State Public Radio reported that the city had “looked at this some more” and “come to the conclusion they would be exempt.” This conclusion, as well as the recent change of status request filed by the Hitching Post, which would classify the business as a “religious corporation” has materially changed the story. However, it does appear that the story has validity, and that the issue is now resolved for this particular chapel.___In Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, Donald and Evelyn Knapp are paying the price for the revocation of freedom that American’s have instituted in the past generation. Before long, you’ll be paying the price, too.Before we get to their story, consider the freedoms we have given away in this generation:
- The freedom of privacy
- The freedom of conscience
- The freedom to travel unhindered
- The freedom to private finances
- The freedom to “reserve the right to refuse to do business” with anyone, for any reason.
As we gave up these freedoms, we always had a good excuse, be it health or terrorism or discrimination or some other “greater good.” We bought the line that the “greater good” is better than the “individual good.” I have come to reject this idea, and believe that what is not good for the individual is ultimately not good for the whole.Eventually the loss of individual freedoms will individually cost us. Donald and Evelyn Knapp are simply among the first to be forced to pay the dues. The Knapps own a wedding venue in Coeur d’Alene and are in violation of a city anti-discrimination ordinance. It has been reported that if they refuse to perform homosexual weddings they face prison time and a $1,000 per day fine. Such an ordinance violates the couple’s free speech and the government has no compelling interest in forcing the Knapps to perform speak words at a wedding which violate their conscience and their first amendment rights.
A temporary restraining order has been requested.“But it is discrimination!”The Homosexual lobby has worked tirelessly for 30 years to build the case that comes against the Knapps today. Their case was built with one question, which they kept in the public mind all these years, and which, until recently, was debated without end. The question: Is it nature or nurture? Prior to the 1950s, the answer was unanimously nurture. Since that time, and especially in the last three decades, the nature answer has been brainwashed into young Americans with a militant consistency. Today, the average young American believes that homosexual people are born gay, which is an essential part of the Knapp case.You see, if I saw a business that had a sign which said, “No Jews Allowed,” I would be incensed. If it said, “No blacks allowed,” (or any other race), I would be infuriated. Racial discrimination has no place in our society and is contrary to God’s Word. So some would ask, “How can you support a business that says, ‘No Gays Allowed’?” It all comes down to nature and nurture. Discrimination is a hatred or disrespect of those who have a nature that is given by birth and is absent of moral issues. For example, a person’s gender or ethnicity, or a person’s physical or mental disabilities. If homosexuality is natural and absent of moral issues, then the Knapps are simply discriminatory bigots. But, on the other hand, if the Knapps believe that homosexuality is a choice that involves morality, then they are to be commended for being people of conscience and conviction.Would there be any public uproar if the Knapps declined to provide marriage service to a drunken heterosexual couple? No, because drunkenness is a choice of behavior that involves morality. Would there be any uproar if the Knapps declined to provide marriage services to a 60 year old man who came in with a 17 year old girl? No, because there is a choice and a moral implication. Should it be legal (and someday it will be), would the Knapps currently cause uproar if they refused marriage services to a man and two women, or a group that wanted to be wed? No, because it involves choice and morals. If something involves choice and morals, it is not discrimination for another to decline to be associated with such a choice.Ideas have consequences. When we were debating the nature versus nurture question, we should have looked to the end of the path. If homosexuality is a nature issue, then the Knapps are being discriminatory, plain and simple.
Freedom cuts both waysI believe in a free society. While I would like to establish a freedom that only gives people freedom to do what I would want them to do, I realize that such would only be a different form of totalitarianism. If I believe in freedom, I’ve got to be consistent with it. This means that I am going to live in a society of people who make lifestyle choices of which I disapprove. I must remain free to reject affiliation with these for my family, business, and associations. If we are going to have a free society, let’s be “free indeed."Does this mean that homosexuals in a free society should be free to get married? I don’t think so (though I do think it is a decision that the society can make). Marriage, by nature, is not a decision that affects only the couple involved. Marriage, with apologies to the romantic, is really a form of corporate law. Since the government (through the judiciary) is going to inevitably have to make decisions for corporate entities, the legislatures of those governments set the rules of incorporation. Because I am married, the government views "Mr. and Mrs. Randy White” as a single entity, taxed as one, an entity which owns property as the corporate whole, not the individual parts. This is corporate law, plain and simple. Personally, I believe that the corporate law of marriage has to be defined by the legislative arm of government, guarded by the executive arm, and litigated by the judicial arm. I also believe that the broader the definition of marriage, the more challenging it will become to clean up the legal and financial mess when marriages dissolve. Homosexual marriage will, given enough time, result in the loss of legal marriage privileges for all.In the end, freedom has to allow the uncomfortable things we are against. The homosexual lobby needs to come to this same recognition. I will stand by the Knapps in their freedom of conscience to reserve the right to deny their services to people who make choices that go against their personal morals. If the homosexual lobby truly believes in freedom, they will do the same.
